But what about 'Nique giving up on Slick? There's no use in chasing after someone if they've given up on you._________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

But what about 'Nique giving up on Slick? There's no use in chasing after someone if they've given up on you.

There is a huge amount of medieval lit that disagrees... and if Nique can change her view one way, she could change itthe other way. Not saying it will be easy for Slick, but we know he loves, not just lusts, after her.

But what about 'Nique giving up on Slick? There's no use in chasing after someone if they've given up on you.

There is a huge amount of medieval lit that disagrees... and if Nique can change her view one way, she could change itthe other way. Not saying it will be easy for Slick, but we know he loves, not just lusts, after her.

You mean those heteronormative stories encouraging rape and denying women their rights? _________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

But what about 'Nique giving up on Slick? There's no use in chasing after someone if they've given up on you.

There is a huge amount of medieval lit that disagrees... and if Nique can change her view one way, she could change itthe other way. Not saying it will be easy for Slick, but we know he loves, not just lusts, after her.

You mean those heteronormative stories encouraging rape and denying women their rights?

Wha? The beloved is sacred in those stories, not sure where you studied middle english.

But what about 'Nique giving up on Slick? There's no use in chasing after someone if they've given up on you.

kinda true, but that's the central relationship in this work of fiction. or it used to be. i guess with how disjointed the strip has gotten (in the sense that it has like... 5 or so storylines that just occasionally bump into each other) it isn't a huge loss if they really separate, but i'd be surprised if that lasts

That's a total obfuscation. Being sacred isn't mutually exclusive of encouraging rape, and if you can honestly claim that women during the middle ages weren't denied rights then you either have no idea what you're talking about or a definition of "rights" that's tighter than Rick Santorum at a Log Cabin meeting._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

You mean those heteronormative stories encouraging rape and denying women their rights?

Wha? The beloved is sacred in those stories, not sure where you studied middle english.

Seeing a woman-- and extrapolating from there, all women-- as a Madonna is just as oppressive as debasing her (and all women) as a whore. There's a fixation upon virginity and the idea of property. It is steeped in misogyny (never thought I'd be the one to say that) and is based on some extremely archaic beliefs. Besides, what kind of message do you think it gave girls? Even as free as nobles were, they (especially their females) were relegated to extremely fixed roles and... I don't know, does any of this sound similar to what we do now with advertising? We're just better at hiding it.

Besides that, a dogged pursuit of a woman when she is clearly not interested is a "nice guy" technique and kind of sort of really creepy. It never works and if the guy is really persistent, someone usually makes sure the two of them are never alone in the same room

If you argue that the culture was different, women were expected to service men in some way (even if they were to keep their virginity, an obligation is an obligation, and the lady obviously doesn't really want the guy unless she's playing hard-to-get, which is dumb), so we basically go back to the dude being a creep, hounding a woman down until she gives him what she wants without him taking her feelings into consideration. I mean, geez, not even rape, how about love? Does she REALLY want to marry the guy if she keeps running away? _________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

You mean those heteronormative stories encouraging rape and denying women their rights?

Wha? The beloved is sacred in those stories, not sure where you studied middle english.

Seeing a woman-- and extrapolating from there, all women-- as a Madonna is just as oppressive as debasing her (and all women) as a whore. There's a fixation upon virginity and the idea of property. It is steeped in misogyny (never thought I'd be the one to say that) and is based on some extremely archaic beliefs. Besides, what kind of message do you think it gave girls? Even as free as nobles were, they (especially their females) were relegated to extremely fixed roles and... I don't know, does any of this sound similar to what we do now with advertising? We're just better at hiding it.

Besides that, a dogged pursuit of a woman when she is clearly not interested is a "nice guy" technique and kind of sort of really creepy. It never works and if the guy is really persistent, someone usually makes sure the two of them are never alone in the same room

If you argue that the culture was different, women were expected to service men in some way (even if they were to keep their virginity, an obligation is an obligation, and the lady obviously doesn't really want the guy unless she's playing hard-to-get, which is dumb), so we basically go back to the dude being a creep, hounding a woman down until she gives him what she wants without him taking her feelings into consideration. I mean, geez, not even rape, how about love? Does she REALLY want to marry the guy if she keeps running away?

Just a funny anecdote. Things were so different 60+ years ago, let alone hundreds. My grandmother met my grandfather in the Arkansas mountains as he was walking by to work in the coal mines. He saw my grandmother washing clothes, loved her the moment he saw her, strolled up to her, and said, "Let me show you how a REAL man washes clothes."

My grandmother SWOONED. I always loved that story. I always wondered how that situation would have played out today. Probably the same way, I imagine, since my grandmother loved him at first sight too. I guess sometimes you just know right off the bat.

It's a shame it seems to happen less nowadays. I hear more and more about men and women complaining how nobody ever asks them out.

Either they are too attractive and others are intimidated, or they are really awful and nobody wants to date them. Alternatively, they may be waiting for someone to make the first move. There's a lot of girls from southern Asia in my school, and a lot of them have "traditional" values, so they always wait for a guy to make the first move. I've had so many girls ask me why so and so isn't talking to them and I ask why they don't just talk themselves, and they invariably say something along these lines: "no, that'd be weird," or, "no, I don't want to make the first move," or, "why would I do that?". It may be a bit presumptuous of me to say that it is a cultural thing (lots of American-born white females have similar reasoning), but yeaaaah. People are funny like that.

Of course, you have the right to pursue or wait as you please, but if you choose to wait, I don't think you have the right to complain if someone doesn't make a move._________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

The biggest issue between any activist and their non-activist friend is that the cause they champion might not be very important to the friend. You can say "But it's right and just, SO SUPPORT IT" all you like, but many people simply aren't passionate and driven enough to do much more than say "Yeah, I agree with that." It's like being told secondhand about the cruelty of a tyrant in a different country. Obviously you're going to say "That's awful! Horrible!" but you didn't live through it personally and so you're not as emotionally invested. I submit that you actually cannot be as emotionally invested as the person who actually lived through it. No matter how much you may sympathize. If the sufferer gets mad at you because you're not sufficiently enraged, then I say they expect too much. You have to account for the perspectives of other people. It's not that they don't care, it's that they can't grasp why you care so deeply.
Many times people are incapable of understanding why a cause is so important because it doesn't affect them directly. Slick is a good example of this. He doesn't have any feelings towards feminism because he's not invested personally. He has trouble understanding women at all, much less relating to them and their problems on a emotional level. This doesn't necessarily make him a bad person.
Slick obviously cares a great deal about Monique. He loves her, or at least believes he does, and he's definitely been a friend to her in the past. Does he relate to her struggles? Not even a little bit. He relates so little he doesn't even know why she's mad. He's utterly mystified by her angry reaction and has apparently assumed she thought he was criticizing her performance. A stance which he is prepared to defend, since to his mind she made a poor choice of topic if she wanted to be successful on stage. It doesn't occur to Slick for even a moment that there is a more important issue here than Monique doing an unsuccessful show. Slick isn't very perceptive. Maybe not dumb exactly, but certainly a little slow on the uptake.

I wonder if Monique has ever sat down with Slick, told him in no uncertain terms what her beliefs are, and asked him in all seriousness what he thought. Logic dictates that she would, and it either went over his head or he didn't give it any genuine thought... but what if she hasn't?

That's a total obfuscation. Being sacred isn't mutually exclusive of encouraging rape, and if you can honestly claim that women during the middle ages weren't denied rights then you either have no idea what you're talking about or a definition of "rights" that's tighter than Rick Santorum at a Log Cabin meeting.